I knew Lou way back when. He worked at a Seattle TV station (I worked on the radio side) and he was regarded by my little circle as a pompous, knee-jerk conservative, sexist guy. If you asked me, "Does he think for himself?" My impression was no.

We knew of his great ambitions but were frankly surprised when he got his CNN gig. He came with his talking points, however, and stuck with them.

So, what happened that I recommend him now?

One thing that becomes clear to me: he became a man who chooses to think for himself. He is apparently a man who wants to learn, to dig, to know the truth even if it flies in the face of what he's said before, enough to grow as a person and as a media representative for all viewers, not the few who hold the purse strings of the lobbyists, political parties, corporate powers that be or advertisers.

Mind you, I don't agree with everything Lou says or does any more than I agree with everything Keith says or does.

But I do think he would be willing to learn if he finds he's on the wrong track. He's done it before. Likewise, Keith strikes me as someone who's more interested in the truth than in being "right." Or left.

Keep giving 'em hell, Lou, and looking out for all American citizens who feel so helpless and far away from any sense of power - especially since even the integrity of the vote is questioned since voting systems cannot be verified without an all-important but missing paper trail.

Keith Olbermann, has a terrific sports background, so I believe he sees politics more the way you and I do because he didn't get broken in to the national journalistic community through the typical channels: start small, know and socialize with the politicians about whom you report as you climb up the food chain, cut a few quid pro quo deals to get a scoop, and the list goes on.

The system has developed into one in which if you want to report on someone significant, if you want access to him or her, you have to toe the line or else they'll slam the door. The key is not to take no for an answer and not to get enmeshed with anyone to the point they owe you anything or you owe them anything.

The truth is the truth. An opinion is an opinion. I'm not threatened by either, but a whole lot of people are, and for a journalist to be threatened by either is dangerous.

Recently, aGQ Magazine article on Hillary Clinton was killed - apparently it had some pretty critical points to make about her as well as laudatory comments (the reporter said it was very balanced) - in order to secure a media seat on a plane traveling with former President Bill Clinton to Africa to show all the work being done there by him to help not only that nation, but others.

Part of the problem is that too many people are addled by a barrage of propaganda and spun data that the truth is very difficult to find, report or discern.

The biggest telltale sign of a poor, misleading report is one that simply quotes someone as fact, then quote someone else who disagrees with what was said. Neither is a fact, and in fact when especially someone from the Bush administration says something there is at least a 50-50 chance what they are saying is an outright lie.

For whatever reason, the President, thinking himself a king, not in an elected position; the Vice-President and other high level administrative appointees have no qualms about lying to make you do what they want you to do, believe what they want you to believe.

An unquestioning, unchallenging media provided the gateway to their hubris. To the point they actually convinced themselves they would never be caught in their lies; from there, they honestly think that no one would believe they would tell a lie.

They're wrong.

Some media have managed to get a spinal transplant. But too few to stop the partisan squabbling that may ultimately be the undoing of a genuinely great nation.